Many thanks!

And the grass in R&C is downright ugly while in 3DW it's gorgeous even though it's unrealistic. It's a really nice texture.

Breedinbull does make a good point; we have veered a bit off topic.

Back to Project CARS, assuming the Wii U version makes it to release, there's no good reason it can't look at least on par with Need for Speed Most Wanted U. Sure, Project CARS will have more going on with its higher car counts and weather, but NFS is open world.

Some strange responses here. My argument is the wii u has a stronger gpu but weaker cpu and many have indirectly agreed with this by stating games were designed for the ps3 and 360 not wii u which of course is basically confirmation of the higher cpu performance of the 360 and PS3 which was my point in the first place. Hence my comment about the wii u being the super nintendo to the 360 and PS3 being the megadrive. Two different designs both having superior power to the other for certain games.

Clearly if developers completely optimise a game that max out gpu performance and cut back on required cpu performance then you can create games optimised for wii u.

We know the wii u has 3 1.25ghz powerpc cores each of which is the same 32bit architecture as the original wii. No one expects that to match 360 and PS3 cpu performance surely.

It's also a weak argument when a unreleased game is used for the basis of comparison to actual released games. We don't know how good the new X game will be on wii u. Many of what has been shown is likely from more powerful development hardware and not a fair comparison.

The 360 and PS3 still have a far wider range of far more impressive games than wii u. Impressive doesn't just mean graphic quality but also the sheer scope and ambition of games. Higher cpu resources pay dividends for many games.

It's hard to make a case sometimes because of the limited range of software available for wii u and much of what is available is quite limited often quite simplistic games.

The fact remains that the 360 and PS3 are still very competitive with the wii u on a performance level. The 360 is a brilliant design for its day with perhaps it's limited storage being one of its weaker points. Exclusive games written for the 360 do a pretty amazing job. Same for ps3 when the cell processor is fully optimised assisting both gpu and providing additional cpu resources, some ps3 games are stunning. The wii u of course has some fantastic games itself but apart from upcoming X there isn't really anything today that is that impressive with regards game engines. What the wii u does well is provide a few visual enhancements thanks to its gpu feature set and 32MB of fast memory which is mainly used for its frame buffer. I've not seen anything on wii u that couldn't be achieved on ps3 or 360 at maybe a marginally inferior visual quality where as the wii u has failed to achieve decent frame rates in many multiformat games compared to ps3 and 360. Including games like call of duty which achieved a 60fps frame rate on 360 but hovers around 30-40 on wii u.

Compared to Mario, which almost has no ground texture whatsoever judging from that screenshot. It only has different shades of green here and there

12K? My eyes would hurt after seeing those 3 screens with how HD it is.

Our eyes see at 400 megapixels, or 400,000 pixels.

Devs have confirmed there are Wii U games that PS3/360 cannot run without downgrades.

If you consider the gap insufficient, that's between between you and your peepers, and it's an opinion you're entitled to. But the gap is there whether it pleases you or not.

So we see in 400k is that it ? What Im wondering is can we tell the difference ? I seriously have a hard time telling the difference btween 900p and 1000p, unless IM watching them go side by side I cant look at a game running in 900p and say "Oh thats 900p".